Loose ends, theirs and ours

I’ve said before that I don’t envy the lawyers who’ve taken on the defense of the Scruggs accuseds. Even before we know the whole case they’re up against, confirmation that it includes a 90-minute group conversation (presumably captured by Tim Balducci’s body mike) and 124 wiretapped phone conversations is daunting enough. But keep in mind that neither they nor we know to a certainty what further evidence to expect from Judge Lackey’s audio/video-wired chambers, or what the other records, transcripts, and/or photos the prosecution hasn’t yet delivered to them may include. (Well, as someone around here (NMC?) I think said, they probably do know p r e t t y well what else is on tap, but they can’t be 100% sure.)

Of course John Keker yesterday wouldn’t discuss what conversations the recordings captured or how often the voice of Dickie Scruggs chimes in on them, but he did claim, “It’s not going to be many and it’s not going to be much. It’s not going to matter” — as Hiram Eastland happy-talked, “I’m very encouraged on behalf of my client [Steve Patterson] by what I’ve seen and heard so far about this case.”

Rather more convincingly, Zach Scruggs’s lawyer, Tony Farese, told the AP’s reporter, “The government is working diligently to make sure we receive discovery on time. It’s a lot of work on their end” [emph. mine].